negative review (preview)

[Trifna]

Well...

Gameplay and graphics changed a little bit from civilization 1 to 2. But overall, everything is the same.

I guess he didn't even went reading anything of Civ III before to say this. All his text is exempt of a single argument. He says an opinion without giving any reason, excepting "Civ III is same than Civ II"...

[El hidalgo]

Originally posted by Dida


there are already 18 or so reviews on Amazon.com, please note, most of those reviews are extremely positive. While I don't like people bashing the game w/o first playing it, giving the game 5 starts when the reviewers have never seem the game is really ridiculous too.

You're right, what's the rush to review a game -- in either negative or positive terms -- if you've never played it? Makes no sense to me. Maybe these reviewers are trying to influence Infogrames' stock price? And I guess this guy is taking a short position.

[MonsterMan]

Civ 3 is better than Civ 2

But in my opinion it isn't good enough.

16 civs? Uh, I want a hundred. Nevermind the leader movies. But the fact that 16 civs can be in the game at the same time is pretty good. I'm not gonna bring up the fact that with slight editing, CTP2 could play with over 30 civs at the same time

The game ends in 2050? 2350 would be more like it. Players could still win the game in the normal ways, with a few alterations (the space oddyssey goes to Mars and the player(s) can keep in touch with their colonies there).

Civ-specific units? Good call. But why just one each? For example, why not a dozen or so different airplanes? It would be tantalizing to see what a Babylonian bomber would have looked like.

I'll still buy it though.

[Fidel]

all those previews/reviews are worthless since they are written on the basis of other previews. no one played the game yet.